Extra Families, Higgs Spectrum and Oblique Corrections

The standard model accommodates, but does not explain, three families of leptons and quarks, while various extensions suggest extra matter families. The oblique corrections from extra chiral families with relatively light (weak-scale) masses, $M_{f} \sim$, are analyzed and used to constrain the number of extra families and their spectrum. The analysis is motivated, in part, by recent N = 2 supersymmetry constructions, but is performed in a model-independent way. It is shown that the correlations among the contributions to the three oblique parameters, rather than the contribution to a particular one, provide the most significant bound. Nevertheless, a single extra chiral family with a constrained spectrum is found to be consistent with precision data without requiring any other new physics source. Models with three additional families may also be accommodated but only by invoking additional new physics, most notably, a two-Higgs-doublet extension. The interplay between the spectra of the extra fermions and the Higgs boson(s) is analyzed in the case of either one or two Higgs doublets, and its implications are explored. In particular, the precision bound on the SM-like Higgs boson mass is shown to be significantly relaxed in the presence of an extra relatively light chiral family.Comment: 20 pages, 8 figures, version for PR

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Sotagliflozin plus Insulin Versus Insulin Alone

Background: Diabetes-related distress is common among persons affected by diabetes and is associated with suboptimal glycemic control and complications, thus constituting a relevant patient-report outcome (PRO). Improving glycemic control may reduce diabetes distress and improve treatment satisfaction. This post hoc analysis evaluated PRO data for a pooled cohort of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) receiving sotagliflozin as adjunct to optimized insulin in the inTandem1 and inTandem2 studies. Methods: Clinically meaningful changes in the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and the two-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS2) total and individual scores were examined in the pooled data from the first 24 weeks of the studies. Results: In the cohort of patients with a baseline DTSQs total score ?32 (?76% of entire cohort), nearly twice as many patients treated with sotagliflozin 200 (45.9%) or 400 mg (42.3%) experienced a >3-point improvement from baseline versus those treated with placebo (24%). Treatment with sotagliflozin led to statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvements across all DTSQs items. Approximately 42% of all patients were considered to have a high risk of diabetes distress (total DDS2 score ?6) at baseline following insulin optimization. More patients shifted from high to low risk with sotagliflozin compared with placebo (?40% vs. 23%; P ? 0.0002). The baseline-Adjusted difference in DDS2 from placebo was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced by-0.5 and-0.6 for sotagliflozin 200 and 400 mg, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with T1D treated with sotagliflozin in addition to optimized insulin therapy reported meaningful improvements in treatment satisfaction and diabetes distress. NCT02384941 and NCT0242151